This chapter provides an overview and the committee’s evaluation of the SuperTruck projects that began in 2010. The SuperTruck projects were designed to provide complete long-haul Class 8 trucks that incorporate a wide range of technologies that have been developed under the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) over the past decade. This program offers the opportunity to demonstrate which technologies can actually be implemented in a truck, as well as the opportunity to perform vehicle-level testing of the technologies. The chapter introduction describes the basic design and intent of the SuperTruck projects. The second section describes the goals, timetables, tasks, and deliverables of the SuperTruck projects. The third section examines in detail the budgets available for these projects, and the fourth section looks at the SuperTruck project teams and the technologies that they plan to evaluate. The chapter concludes with the committee’s evaluation of the SuperTruck project plans, goals, and overall approach.
Nature of the SuperTruck Projects
On January 11, 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced the selection of nine projects, totaling more than $187 million, to improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and passenger vehicles. The funding includes more than $100 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).1 The projects require that private industry contribute at least 50 percent of the project cost, and so a total of more than $375 million will be provided for research, development, and demonstration projects (DOE, 2010a).
Of the funding recipients announced by DOE, three projects will focus on measures to improve the overall efficiency of long-haul Class 8 trucks. These projects will receive $115 million in DOE funding to develop and demonstrate full-vehicle system-level technologies by 2015. The total cost of the full-vehicle projects will be more than $230 million, including contractor contributions to the funding. Three projects have been selected for awards under the SuperTruck program:2
1. Cummins, Inc., Columbus, Indiana—Develop and demonstrate a highly efficient and clean diesel engine, an advanced Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) system, an aerodynamic Peterbilt tractor-trailer combination, and a solid oxide fuel cell auxiliary power unit (APU) to reduce engine idling.
2. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Portland, Oregon—Develop and demonstrate technologies including optimized combustion, engine downsizing, electrification of auxiliary systems such as oil and water pumps, waste heat recovery, improved aerodynamics, hybridization, and possibly a fuel cell auxiliary power unit to reduce engine idling.
3. Navistar, Inc., Melrose Park, Illinois—Develop and demonstrate technologies to improve truck and trailer aerodynamics, combustion efficiency, waste heat recovery, hybridization, idle reduction, and reduced rolling resistance tires.
The objective of the three SuperTruck projects is to develop and apply technologies leading to a system-level demonstration of highly efficient and clean diesel-powered Class 8 trucks that (DOE, 2010b):
• Achieve a 50 percent increase in vehicle freight efficiency measured in ton-miles per gallon, which
1 Funding Opportunity Announcement (DOE, 2010b, pp. 6-8).
2 Volvo Technology of America was awarded a fourth SuperTruck project in August 2011. Details of the technology development plan were not available to the committee during the preparation of this report.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 115
8 SuperTruck Program INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND million in DOE funding to develop and demonstrate full- vehicle system-level technologies by 2015. The total cost This chapter provides an overview and the committee’s of the full-vehicle projects will be more than $230 million, evaluation of the SuperTruck projects that began in 2010. including contractor contributions to the funding. Three The SuperTruck projects were designed to provide com- projects have been selected for awards under the SuperTruck plete long-haul Class 8 trucks that incorporate a wide range program:2 of technologies that have been developed under the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) over the past decade. 1. Cummins, Inc., Columbus, Indiana —Develop and This program offers the opportunity to demonstrate which demonstrate a highly efficient and clean diesel engine, technologies can actually be implemented in a truck, as well an advanced Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) system, an as the opportunity to perform vehicle-level testing of the aerodynamic Peterbilt tractor-trailer combination, and technologies. The chapter introduction describes the basic a solid oxide fuel cell auxiliary power unit (APU) to design and intent of the SuperTruck projects. The second sec- reduce engine idling. tion describes the goals, timetables, tasks, and deliverables 2. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Portland, Or- of the SuperTruck projects. The third section examines in egon—Develop and demonstrate technologies includ- detail the budgets available for these projects, and the fourth ing optimized combustion, engine downsizing, elec- section looks at the SuperTruck project teams and the tech- trification of auxiliary systems such as oil and water nologies that they plan to evaluate. The chapter concludes pumps, waste heat recovery, improved aerodynamics, with the committee’s evaluation of the SuperTruck project hybridization, and possibly a fuel cell auxiliary power plans, goals, and overall approach. unit to reduce engine idling. 3. Navistar, Inc., Melrose Park, Illinois—Develop and Nature of the SuperTruck Projects demonstrate technologies to improve truck and trailer a erodynamics, combustion efficiency, waste heat On January 11, 2010, the Department of Energy (DOE) recovery, hybridization, idle reduction, and reduced announced the selection of nine projects, totaling more than rolling resistance tires. $187 million, to improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and passenger vehicles. The funding includes more The objective of the three SuperTruck projects is to than $100 million from the American Recovery and Rein- develop and apply technologies leading to a system-level vestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).1 The projects require that demonstration of highly efficient and clean diesel-powered private industry contribute at least 50 percent of the project Class 8 trucks that (DOE, 2010b): cost, and so a total of more than $375 million will be pro- vided for research, development, and demonstration projects • Achieve a 50 percent increase in vehicle freight (DOE, 2010a). efficiency measured in ton-miles per gallon, which Of the funding recipients announced by DOE, three proj- ects will focus on measures to improve the overall efficiency of long-haul Class 8 trucks. These projects will receive $115 2 Volvo Technology of America was awarded a fourth SuperTruck project in August 2011. Details of the technology development plan were not avail- 1 Funding Opportunity Announcement (DOE, 2010b, pp. 6-8). able to the committee during the preparation of this report. 115
OCR for page 115
116 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT translates to a 33 percent reduction in load-specific of commercialization. Prototype vehicle demonstrations fuel consumption (gallons per 1,000 ton-miles); should address this concern. Cummins intends to demon- strate 50 percent BTE under highway cruise conditions,3 as • Achieve at least a 20 percent improvement through engine efficiency development, and achieve 50 percent requested in the program objectives and as recommended brake thermal efficiency (BTE) under highway cruise by the NRC Phase 1 report. The other teams are expected conditions, which translates to a 16.7 percent reduc- to provide similar demonstrations. Recommendation 4-6 in tion in fuel consumption due to engine improvements; the NRC Phase 1 report suggests continued development and and demonstration of heavy-duty hybrid truck technology, • Evaluate potential approaches to 55 percent BTE in as will be addressed by the Navistar and possibly also by an engine via modeling, analysis, and potentially also the Daimler SuperTruck teams. The SuperTruck projects laboratory tests. plan to address Recommendation 5-1 of the NRC Phase 1 report, which suggests continued evaluation of systems that Deliverables include computer simulation and hardware can improve idle reduction, along with the study of the cost- testing, as well as full-vehicle demonstrations using realistic effectiveness of such systems. The Cummins and Daimler drive cycles. An additional deliverable called for in the Fund- teams plan to evaluate fuel cell APUs, and the Navistar ing Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is that “the systems team plans to use the hybrid system battery to provide idle developed shall be validated as cost effective via a business reduction. With regard to lightweight materials research, case analysis and will be reviewed for commercialization the NRC Phase 1 report’s Recommendation 5-3 notes that it potential in later project phases as part of the phase gate should be the responsibility of truck manufacturers to take review process” (DOE, 2010b, p. 7). the next steps of system integration, product validation, and Each of the three teams is composed of a number of production of a lightweight truck—an opportunity afforded partners, including engine and truck original equipment by the SuperTruck program. Many of the fuel-saving tech- manufacturers (OEMs), suppliers, fleet owners, universities, nologies that will be implemented by the SuperTruck teams and DOE laboratories. Although each team has the same add significant weight to the vehicle, so all the teams have objectives, different technologies have been selected by plans to implement offsetting weight reductions. In short, the different teams to meet these objectives. For example, the SuperTruck program appears to address several of the Navistar and Daimler plan to use hybridization in their shortcomings noted in the NRC (2008) Phase 1 report. approach to meeting the 50 percent vehicle freight efficiency target, whereas Cummins does not. In addition, the Navistar GOALS, TIMETABLES, TASKS (ACTIVITIES), AND and Daimler teams plan to use different types of hybrid DELIVERABLES systems. Later in this section, the teams and the technical approach used by each team are identified. In general, each Project Goals team will seek to improve vehicle freight efficiency through improved powertrain efficiency, idle reduction, reduced The project goals were listed by DOE (2010b) in the aerodynamic drag, and reduced tire rolling resistance, among Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). The overall other technologies. goal for Class 8 tractor-trailers is to develop and demon- strate a 50 percent total increase in vehicle freight efficiency measured in ton-miles per gallon (equivalent to a 33 percent Background and Relationship to Previous 21st Century load-specific fuel consumption reduction [gal/1,000 ton- Truck Projects mile]). This will be achieved through efficiency improvement The SuperTruck projects can be considered a logical in advanced vehicle systems technologies and advanced extension of prior research and development (R&D) activi- engine technologies. The project duration will be up to 5 ties of the 21CTP, in the sense that many of the technologies years. At least 20 percent of this 50 percent improvement will that will be applied in a system-level demonstration began be through the development of a heavy-duty diesel engine as R&D initiatives and component-level demonstrations. capable of achieving 50 percent BTE on a dynamometer Indeed, the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Phase under a load representative of a level road at 65 mph (see 1 report on the 21CTP had several recommendations for Chapter 3 in this report). Specific technology developments system-level demonstrations and a recommendation that mentioned in the FOA include ancillary systems, waste industry partners assess cost objectives required to achieve heat recovery, materials, and electrification in addition to commercial viability (NRC, 2008). The SuperTruck projects advanced combustion techniques. should result in more accurate estimates of the commercial The project efficiency goals must be met while adhering viability of the various technologies. In Table 3-9 of the to prevailing (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) 2010 NRC (2008) Phase 1 report, it is noted that a shortcoming of component testing is that such hardware demonstrations 3 Donald Stanton, Cummins, “Cummins-Peterbilt SuperTruck Program,” are not subject to the realistic packaging constraints typical presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 115
117 SUPERTRUCK PROGRAM emissions standards as well as the vehicle safety and regula- (NRC, 2008, p. 3). This shortcoming has been corrected in tory requirements that apply to Class 8 tractor-trailers. The the current project goals, in which an engine dynamometer FOA stipulates that the vehicle efficiency improvement will demonstration is required over a simulated real-world duty require an integrated team that includes an engine manufac- cycle, and the 50 percent BTE goal is to be achieved at the turer, a truck OEM, and a trailer manufacturer, along with “highway cruise” condition. suppliers, national laboratories, universities, fleet operators, It is worth noting that the target for 50 percent BTE under and other stakeholders, to ensure maximum benefit. “highway cruise” conditions is significantly more stringent Additional fuel-saving technologies listed in the FOA than the original 21CTP goal of 50 percent peak BTE. The include electrical or mechanical drivetrain hybridization original goal was for the engine’s best operating point, which with energy storage and regeneration, along with reductions is typically at or near full load at relatively low engine speed. in aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, weight, and main Cruise speed is typically somewhat higher than the best BTE engine idle. The FOA specifies that any demonstration of speed, and cruise load is lower than the typical best BTE achievement must utilize a test cycle proposed by the team load point. In addition, the vehicle aerodynamic and rolling that is representative of a typical long-haul Class 8 truck, and resistance goals of SuperTruck will lead to lower vehicle including a minimum of 75 percent of the distance traveled power demand on the engine at cruise, which makes the tar- under highway conditions, with a vehicle weight of 65,000 get of 50 percent BTE at cruise even more challenging. The lb. The level of improvement is based on a comparison to SuperTruck contractors may find that this change in goals a similarly configured “best-in-class” 2009 commercially introduces a significant technical challenge. available Class 8 vehicle. Comparable vehicle performance, The 2006 21CTP goals provided for an effort to develop such as acceleration times and grade capability, is to be component technologies for reaching a 55 percent (peak) maintained by the SuperTruck vehicle. BTE, with a particular focus on low-temperature combustion A second project goal is to identify key pathways to (LTC) (NRC, 2008). The current project reduces the 55 per- achieving a 55 percent BTE heavy-duty diesel engine, cent BTE focus to one providing for modeling and analysis, through modeling and analysis conducted in parallel with including a requirement to comply with 2010 criteria emis- work toward the overall goal of a 50 percent improvement sions. The FOA calls for identifying critical components and/ in vehicle freight efficiency. Critical components and/or sys- or systems needing specific development, and finally evaluat- tems needing specific additional development to achieve this ing the overall system for commercial viability. No test dem- 55 percent BTE goal should also be identified. This engine onstration appears to be required, although two SuperTruck must be capable of meeting 2010 emissions standards, and teams (Cummins and Navistar) showed the committee plans it must be commercially viable, which implies a requirement for a test cell demonstration of the 55 percent target. for cost-effectiveness. In summary, comparing the goals for these SuperTruck projects to the previous (2006) 21CTP goals, it appears that the DOE has implemented more robust requirements for Relationship Between SuperTruck Goals and Previous demonstrations under near-real-world conditions and has (2006) 21CTP Goals required the contracting teams to include a wide range of The most outstanding difference between the SuperTruck technical specialties. Now that a number of technologies goals given above and the 21CTP goals established in 2006 have been demonstrated on a laboratory scale under previ- is that the 2006 goals included no requirement for a vehicle ous 21CTP projects, this new approach should serve the measurement of efficiency improvement. This omission trucking industry and the public more favorably over the in the 2006 goals was noted in the NRC Phase 1 report in next several years. Overall Report Recommendation 1-1, stating in part: “more (major truck) manufacturers should be participants” and BUDGETS goals should be “strategic to reducing fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles” (NRC, 2008, p. 2). These omis- The $115 million in DOE funding awarded to the sions have been corrected in the current project goals, SuperTruck program was divided as follows among the three project teams:4,5 which require a vehicle demonstration of fuel-consumption reduction. It is particularly refreshing that the SuperTruck demonstration is required to be conducted under real-world 4 Patrick Davis, DOE, “U.S. Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies operation and gross vehicle weight (GVW) conditions. Program Overview,” presentation to the committee, September 8, 2010, Although the 2006 21CTP goal provided for achieving a Washington, D.C. 20 percent increase in (peak) BTE to 50 percent, the 2008 5 Volvo Technology of America was awarded $19 million in SuperTruck NRC Phase 1 report, in Recommendation 3-1, clarified funding in August 2011. Volvo Technology of Sweden was awarded a simi- that “objective and consistent criteria (were not) used to lar amount by the Swedish government under a separate contract. The two assess the success or failure of achieving that key goal” contracts will combine to provide a SuperTruck program similar in scope to the other three contracts.
OCR for page 115
118 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT • Cummins team: $38,831,115; Daimler have made presentations at the DEER 2010 (Direc- • Daimler team: $39,559,868; and tions in Energy-Efficiency and Emissions Research) confer- • Navistar team: $37,328,933. ence, where some additional details of their SuperTruck plans were revealed. According to the aforementioned FOA (DOE, 2010b), a A summary of the three SuperTruck Team plans is shown 50 percent or greater cost sharing is required of the project in Table 8-1. The first column lists technologies that the teams, but in many cases the requirement for a 50 percent teams plan to evaluate. This list includes technologies sug- cost sharing will be exceeded. For example, Navistar noted gested by the DOE, as well as suggestions from the contract- that it was providing $34 million of “in kind funding,” and ing companies. For example, all three companies added opti- its partners will provide $16.6 million. When combined with mization opportunities for catalytic exhaust systems that may the $37.3 from the DOE, the total Navistar project funding provide measurable fuel-consumption reductions. Entries is about $88 million over a 5-year span. It should also be described as “(Implied)” indicate that the companies had noted that while the Cummins and Daimler teams are directly listed the topic but without any elaboration to describe the supported by ARRA funds, the Navistar team is funded from approach that they intend to take. It is not clear whether the internal DOE resources. This resulted in a delayed start for “implied” technologies will be included in the final project, the Navistar team and will also necessitate annual funding or what form the technologies might take. Two of the teams of the contract as DOE funds permit. made confidential presentations to the committee regarding In addition to the funding provided for the SuperTruck their plans, including details that were not publicly disclosed. program directly, there are also projects in the 21CTP Technologies and approaches that were described only in budget request that provide support at the component these confidential presentations are not shown in Table 8-1. and subsystem level for many of the technologies that A review of Table 8-1 shows that the three studies will take will be applied in the SuperTruck projects. Table 1-2 in different approaches to the program goals, although there is Chapter 1 shows details of funding for non-SuperTruck- overlap. Many of the technology topics are sufficiently broad related 21CTP projects. However, that table also includes so as to provide considerable leeway for unique paths and funding for one of the three SuperTruck projects, namely multiple solutions within a specific technology field. Navistar, which was $4.35 million in FY 2010 and $7.3 The program targets specify a 50 percent increase in vehi- million in FY 2011, and so these amounts would have cle freight efficiency (ton-miles per gallon) and specify that to be subtracted to arrive at the non-SuperTruck funding 20 percent of the improvement must come from improved level. There is no clear definition in Table 1-2 of which engine efficiency in terms of BTE. Because fuel economy line items are SuperTruck-related and which are not. These works in a multiplicative rather than an additive fashion, a non-SuperTruck projects are in areas of technology that 20 percent improvement in engine efficiency combines with are also being explored by the SuperTruck teams, so the a 20 percent reduction in vehicle power demand to produce the required 50 percent overall fuel economy target.6 Items effort in the non-SuperTruck projects should complement the SuperTruck project efforts and help fill the technology 1 through 6, as well as 8 and 9 in Table 8-1 would directly pipeline for the SuperTruck projects. The SuperTruck proj- contribute to reduced load on the engine. The SuperTruck ects funding of $115 million is over 5 years, or an average teams have not predicted efficiency performance values for of $23 million per year. any of these technologies in their public materials. In summary, the DOE has made a significant investment In vehicle aerodynamics, with the exception of Navis- in this effort to improve the overall fuel efficiency of heavy- tar, it is not clear which technologies are being developed duty trucks. The SuperTruck projects will form the backbone beyond those found in the 2010 NRC report on medium- of the 21CTP work over the next several years, and they will and heavy-duty vehicle fuel consumption reduction (NRC, consume most of the budget. 2010). Navistar has identified both an “active fifth wheel” TECHNOLOGIES AND TEAMS 6 A 20 percent increase in BTE leads to a 20 percent increase in fuel Summarizing the Three SuperTruck Team Plans economy, and a 16.7 percent decrease in fuel consumption. A 20 percent reduction in vehicle power demand yields a 20 percent reduction in fuel In addition to describing the two high-level goals, the consumption (assuming constant BTE), and a 25 percent increase in fuel DOE in its FOA document (DOE, 2010b) also suggested economy. These two improvements combine as follows to meet the 50 numerous subtopics that the teams might evaluate for con- percent FE (or 33 percent FC) target: New Fuel Economy = Old FE × ((1 + % increase in FE from BTE) × (1 tribution to those goals. The committee finds the topic list + % increase in FE from Reduction in Load)). substantially inclusive. Each of the three SuperTruck teams New FE = Old FE × ((1 + 20%) × (1 + 25%)) = Old FE × (1.2 × 1.25) made a presentation to the committee providing an overview = 1.5 × Old FE. of its development plans and identifying its team partners, to Thus, New Fuel Economy is 50 percent improved, as a result of improving the extent they were firmed up. Further, both Cummins and BTE by 20 percent and reducing vehicle power demand by 20 percent.
OCR for page 115
119 SUPERTRUCK PROGRAM TABLE 8-1 Comparison of SuperTruck Projects and Technologies to Be Explored by Each of Three Teams Item Technologies That the Industry/Government Lab/Academic/Trucking Fleet Teams Teams Plan to Evaluatea No. Engine mfg.: Detroit Dieselc Engine mfg.: Cummins Engine mfg.: Navistar Truck OEM: Peterbilt Truck OEM: Freightliner Truck OEM: Navistar (Daimler Trucks) Trailer mfg.: Wabash Suppliers: Trailer mfg.: Utility Others TBD ATDynamics, Alcoa, Behr, Bosch, Federal Mogul, Michelin, ArvinMeritor. National labs and universities: TPI /LLNL, ANL Truck operators: Safeway, Swiftd Suppliers: Eaton, Delphi, Modine, Dana, Bridgestone, Van Dyne National labs and universities: ORNL, Purdue Truck operator: U.S. Expressb SmartWay+ tractor, trailer gap 1 Vehicle aerodynamics SmartWay tractor, trailer gap Smartway tractor and trailer, device, full trailer skirts, aft body closure, full trailer skirts, aft other technologies implied plates, active fifth wheel, height body plates, optimized cooling lowered at highway speed to reduce aerodynamic impact, other features TBDe 2 Transmission Advanced (Implied) See Hybrid powertrain Hybrid system type not specifiedf 3 Hybrid powertrain Infrequent start/stop favors waste Diesel-electric dual mode heat recovery—no hybrid planned (series/parallel) 4 Road load management GPS, adaptive cruise, driver Predictive cruise control using 3D feedback digital map database (shown as an example in presentation) 5 Rolling resistance Reduced rolling resistance (Implied) Super single tires/wheels 6 Axles Smart axle (2-wheel/4-wheel drive) Long-haul tandem (possibly 6 × 2) Smart 6 × 2 tandem 7 Idle management Solid oxide fuel cell APU Fuel cell APU Hotel-loads from hybrid Cross-membersf other features TBD 8 Weight reduction Features TBD Cab and trailer composites, plastic fuel tanks, aluminum wheels/brake rotors, aluminum cross-members and driveshafts, carbon composite brake drums 9 Solar panels (Implied) Engine 10 Base engine Increased PCP, changes to In-cylinder pressure sensor Combustion feedback (PCP, friction/parasitics) combustion modes implied 11 Fuel system (Implied) Bosch APCRS Increased injection pressure, parallel gasoline injection option Diesel and gasoline injection 12 Advanced LTC Increased PCCI regime, lifted flame PCCI studies (dual fuel) diffusion burn 13 Controls Powertrain router as network Features TBD Features TBD coordinatorg 14 Electrically driven (Implied) Some accessories Some accessories components 15 Waste heat recovery Rankine cycle, mechanical Rankine cycle, drives electric Rankine cycle, drives electric generator and/or turbocompoundh drive to engine generator continues
OCR for page 115
120 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT TABLE 8-1 Continued Item Technologies That the Industry/Government Lab/Academic/Trucking Fleet Teams Teams Plan to Evaluatea No. 16 Aftertreatment (Implied) SCR and engine-out NOx Minimize DPF regeneration; optimization optimize PM-NOx 17 Turbo technology Turbocharger with its own CVT Turbo compound Turbo compound, dual turbos transmissioni 18 EGR loop (Implied) (Implied) Hybrid EGR (low/high pressure) Compression ratio control, cylinder 19 Variable valve technology (Implied) (Implied) deactivation 20 Engine downsizing Evaluation NOTE: A summary of the three SuperTruck Team plans is shown. These projects are in response to the DOE’s FOA (DOE, 2010b). Entries described as “(Implied)” indicate that the companies had listed the topic, but without any elaboration to describe the approach they intend to take. It is not clear whether the “implied” technologies will be included in the final project, or what form the technologies might take. Acronyms are listed in appendix I. TBD, to be determined. a Includes technologies suggested by the DOE, as well as suggestions from the contracting companies. b Donald Stanton, “Cummins-Peterbilt SuperTruck Program,” presentation to the committee, September 9, 2010, Washington, D.C. c Derek Rotz, “Daimler: DTNA/DDC R&D with DOE: PCC, NZ-50, Super Truck,” presentation to the committee, September 9, 2010, Washington, D.C. d Anthony Cook, “Navistar’s SuperTruck Program,” presentation to the committee, September 9, 2010, Washington, D.C. e CRADA: “Integrated Thermal and External Aerodynamics—Cummins,” Argonne National Laboratory, Jules Routbort, Merit Review, June 2010. f Elmar Bockenhoff, “Daimler: Heavy Duty Diesels: The Road Ahead,” September 27, 2010, DEER Conference, Detroit, Mich. g Donald Stanton, “High Efficiency Clean Combustion for SuperTruck,” September 29, 2010, DEER Conference, Detroit, Mich. h Kevin Sisken, Detroit Diesel Corporation, “Increased Engine Efficiency via Advancements in Engine Combustion Systems,” September 29, 2010, DEER Conference, Detroit, Mich. i Cummins Partners with VanDyne SuperTurbo on Super Truck Program, August 17, 2010. Available at TruckingInfo.com. and “ride height lowered at highway speed” as potential new cal energy, as shown in Figure 8-1. Another approach is to contributions. use the WHR energy to generate electricity for use by a Navistar and Daimler will investigate the optimization of hybrid system or to power electrical accessories. The WHR an electric hybrid system, noting that even a modest (circa system as shown in Figure 8-1 is relatively complex and 6 to 9 percent) contribution may justify the complexity and bulky, making packaging, reliability, and cost all significant expense of such systems, given the high fuel consumption of issues to be overcome before this technology can be imple- highway-duty-cycle tractor-trailer combinations. It appears mented in production. that the two teams exploring electric hybrids plan to use substantially different systems. Project Schedules All three companies have specific plans for managing hotel loads during extended idle periods. Idle reduction A project phase-timing chart is a typical management regulations have been imposed by 46 states and jurisdictions tool for assessing and tracking the resources needed and on the heavy-truck industry (see Chapter 6 for details). The expended for even moderately complex projects. It is not states’ permitted idle time has an average limit of 5 minutes known if detailed charts were submitted to the DOE during and a range of 0 to 15 minutes (usually per 6 to 8 hours, the competitive bidding on the FOA, but such charts should sometimes per hour) (ATRI, 2011). Cummins and Daimler have been part of the application deliverables. Two of the plan to evaluate fuel cells to support hotel loads and reduce companies included extremely brief planning charts in their idle. As an alternative, Daimler is also pursuing a hybrid- public presentations at the committee’s September 8-9, electric solution that could manage the hotel loads. Thus, 2010, meeting. The chart from the Cummins presentation Daimler will evidently have two optional solutions to the is nominally useful to perceive the project complexity and idle-fuel-consumption problem. Navistar indicated that its time frame but not adequately detailed to assess needed hybrid-electric-system battery was expected to be able to resources. For example, the Cummins schedule calls for a handle the hotel load and idle reduction requirements. test cell demonstration of a 50 percent BTE engine by the Waste heat recovery utilizing a Rankine cycle was end of 2011, a demonstration of the vehicle-level target at described by all three companies. Two different methods of the end of 2012, a demonstration of more than 50 percent energy utilization are being explored. Energy from the WHR vehicle freight efficiency improvement over a 24-hour system can be fed directly back to the crankshaft as mechani- duty cycle by October 2013, and a demonstration of the 55
OCR for page 115
121 SUPERTRUCK PROGRAM FIGURE 8-1 Cummins organic Rankine cycle waste heat recovery with energy returned mechanically to crankshaft. Acronyms are defined 8-1.eps in Appendix I. SOURCE: Donald Stanton, Cummins, “Cummins-Peterbilt SuperTruck Program,” presentation to the committee, September bitmap 9, 2010, Washington, D.C. percent BTE engine objective by June 2014. The Cummins specify that at least 75 percent of the duty cycle’s distance schedule did not provide any additional detail regarding traveled must be representative of highway operation and the company’s project plans. The chart from the Daimler that the vehicle shall operate at a weight of 65,000 lb. It is presentation to the committee indicates only the overall the committee’s understanding that the baseline truck will be project time frame but otherwise provides no additional tested at a gross combined weight (GCW) of 65,000 lb and details. Navistar did not include a project schedule in its that the same freight load will be carried by the SuperTruck presentation. prototype. This means that the test weight of the SuperTruck prototypes may be more or less than 65,000 lb, depending on changes in the weight of the empty vehicle. This means that COMMITTEE EVALUATION OF SUPERTRUCK the vehicle will be representative of a “cubed-out” operation, PROJECT PLANS where the trailer is filled with low-density freight before the vehicle reaches the maximum legal weight, which is typically Evaluation of SuperTruck Program Goals 80,000 lb. For long-haul trucks, about 60 percent cube-out, but Although the SuperTruck program has well-defined goals, there is a significant population (tankers, bulk haulers, haulers it leaves many very important details to the individual teams. of high-density freight such as steel, etc.) that routinely “gross The overall freight efficiency improvement needs to be mea- out.” Given the fact that the majority of trucks cube out, the sured on a specific duty cycle or combination of duty cycles. committee is satisfied with the DOE’s selection of 65,000 lb The selection of these duty cycles is left up to the contractors. total vehicle weight for the SuperTruck project. Two of the contractors showed the committee plans to use a The selection of duty cycle is very important, for several range of duty cycles rather than a single duty cycle in order to reasons. First, the selection of duty cycle can have a signifi- better evaluate the technologies. The SuperTruck FOA does cant impact on the performance of specific fuel-saving tech-
OCR for page 115
122 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT nologies. For example, a constant 65 mph cruise cycle, with or Crr values for their 2009 best-in-class vehicles, but these no grade, would highly favor aerodynamic improvements, should be significantly better. Second, the 50 percent fuel but energy storage systems such as hybrid powertrains would savings value in the NRC (2010) report included benefits have little or no benefit. A duty cycle that includes grades from fleet management technology and driver training and and lower-speed operation will give less emphasis to the ben- coaching. These factors are not included explicitly in the efits of aerodynamic improvements, but hybrid systems will SuperTruck program. Once these differences in baseline and offer a greater benefit. A duty cycle with no grades would scope are taken into account, the SuperTruck program targets also not capture the benefit of a feature such as predictive match well with the NRC (2010) report’s projection of fuel cruise control, which adjusts speed in anticipation of grade savings available in the 2016 to 2020 time frame. changes. One result of the requirement that the vehicle be A number of 21CTP projects over the past several years tested at 65,000 lb is that there will be little fuel-consumption have had as a goal the achievement of either 50 or 55 per- advantage in weight reduction, as well as little penalty for cent BTE from the engine. The engine section titled “Brake a weight increase. The committee’s understanding is that Thermal Efficiency Improvements” of Chapter 3 describes since a cubed-out situation is being represented, the freight these projects and their results in detail. The 50 percent load will be held constant, regardless of any change in empty BTE target has proven to be a substantial challenge, which vehicle mass. As a result, a 1,000 lb change in vehicle weight requires the use of expensive and complex technologies such can be expected to cause only a 0.4 to 1.0 percent change in as bottoming cycles. In 21CTP projects to date, technologies fuel consumption (NRC, 2010). have been demonstrated individually which, if combined on A second possible effect of duty-cycle selection is to make a single engine, should provide a BTE of 50 percent (DOE, it easier or more difficult to reach the 50 percent vehicle fuel 2010a). However, there has not yet been a demonstration of a economy (33 percent fuel consumption) improvement target. 50 percent BTE engine in a vehicle. In addition, the require - This issue follows from the issues regarding the performance ment for 50 percent BTE at cruise load poses an additional of specific technologies on a given duty cycle. challenge, because the best point for BTE is typically at a The third, and perhaps most important, issue surround- higher load. This issue will be exacerbated by the fact that ing the choice of duty cycle is the question of how well the SuperTruck vehicle improvements will significantly reduce selected duty cycle will represent “real-world” operating power demand at cruise, which will push the engine to a less performance. This issue is not easy to resolve, because no efficient, lighter-load operating point at cruise. Given these one duty cycle can possibly represent all real-world truck considerations, the 50 percent BTE target appears to be a operations, even within a fairly narrow segment such as relatively risky, but not impossible, goal. The consensus of heavy-duty long haul. Some operators often run with light the committee is that the technical paths to achieving 55 per- loads, and others often operate at (or above) the maximum cent BTE that the contractors will provide are indeed likely legal load. Some operators work in areas with little traffic to include some “stretch” goals and some technologies that where sustained constant-speed operation is possible. Some may prove impractical or extremely expensive. As technol- operators spend most of their time in or near large cities ogy progresses over time, the 55 percent target may become where congestion often restricts operating speed and where more feasible, but there are fundamental thermodynamics speed fluctuation is substantial. Some operators stay in areas issues that will be difficult to overcome. The DOE Office with little grade, and others spend a lot of time in the moun- of Vehicle Technologies Multi-Year Program Plan (DOE, tains. All of these variations will have a substantial effect on 2010c, p. 2.3-2) states that “this activity will also conduct fuel consumption and on the relative benefits of various fuel- R&D on advanced thermodynamic strategies that may enable saving technologies. There is no “one size fits all” solution. engines to approach 60 percent thermal efficiency.” Any The NRC report on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles consideration of BTE targets beyond 55 percent should be showed that a fuel-consumption reduction of 50 percent is carefully examined in light of the laws of thermodynamics. possible for a Class 8 tractor-trailer truck (NRC, 2010). This figure makes the 33 percent fuel-consumption target of the Evaluation of SuperTruck Team Plans SuperTruck program appear relatively modest. However, several factors need to be taken into account. First, the NRC In addition to public presentations made to the committee report used an “average” 2008 model truck as its baseline, by the Cummins/Peterbilt and Navistar teams, the committee whereas the SuperTruck program uses a “best-in-class” 2009 visited the Cummins/Peterbilt team on November 8, 2010, model as the baseline. The “average 2008” tractor would and the Navistar team on January 13, 2011. These visits were have a higher drag coefficient and higher rolling resistance made on a confidential basis, and so details of the plans that tires than the best-in-class 2009 tractor, and the average 2008 were discussed during these visits cannot be included in this trailer is without aerodynamic devices. In the NRC (2010) report. The Daimler team presented its preliminary plans to report, the “average 2008” vehicle was defined as having a the committee on a public basis on September 8-9, 2010. drag coefficient Cd = 0.635, and a rolling resistance Crr = The Daimler presentation used predictive cruise control 0.0068. The SuperTruck contractors declined to reveal the Cd as an example of how it intends to create predictive controls
OCR for page 115
123 SUPERTRUCK PROGRAM for the engine, transmission, and vehicle.7 No details were plans do not call for all three SuperTrucks to be evaluated offered on what these controls might do. The presentation on a common duty cycle, since each team will develop its lists the technologies that are planned for the SuperTruck own duty cycle or cycles. This lack of a common duty cycle program and offers a preliminary risk/benefit evaluation for will make it more difficult to compare the performance of many of these technologies. Many of the features that are the three vehicles and the benefits of individual features and planned fit the list suggested by the DOE. Some additional technologies at the end of the program. items added by the Daimler team include predictive engine The SuperTruck projects include a high level of effort controls, predictive vehicle controls, route-management and and a high level of technical risk. Areas of risk include the driver-feedback features, and the use of solar panels. following: The Cummins/Peterbilt team presented a comprehensive plan that addresses a number of technology areas, including • Many of the fuel-saving technical features, such as engine, transmission, bottoming cycle, tractor and trailer hybrid systems, aerodynamic features, and bottoming aerodynamics, weight reduction (or at least compensation cycles, add significant amounts of weight. A sub- for the weight of new components and systems), and rolling stantial amount of weight-reduction effort (and cost) resistance.8 Additions to the DOE list of suggested technolo- will be required just to maintain the baseline vehicle gies include a solid oxide fuel cell APU for idle elimination weight. and a “smart axle,” which evidently shifts to 6X2 operation • Some technologies, particularly bottoming cycles, are when high traction is not required. Adaptive cruise control likely to pose significant reliability issues. and unspecified driver-feedback features are also part of • Some technologies may not prove cost-effective, such the Cummins/Peterbilt plan. The team will not use a hybrid as extensive weight reduction. system, because its simulation work indicates that waste heat • Because each contractor will develop its own duty recovery has more potential in long-haul applications. cycles and test protocols, it will not be possible to The Navistar team’s plan generally follows the list of tech- compare the results of the three programs directly. nologies provided by the DOE. Notable additions include speed-adjusted ride height and an active 5th wheel for addi- To deal with the last area of risk, the committee believes tional aerodynamic improvement.9 Navistar also plans to use that the contractors should calculate the fuel consumption for a series/parallel hybrid system, by which the vehicle operates the baseline vehicle and engine and for the fully developed in series mode (diesel-electric) at low vehicle speeds and SuperTruck vehicle and engine, using the EPA and NHTSA operates in parallel mode (with direct drive from the engine fuel-consumption regulations. This will allow comparison to the axle) at high speeds. The dual-mode hybrid system of the improvements achieved by the three contractors. In also allows for electric-only operation for short distances. addition, the committee believes that the three contractors Navistar will evaluate a dual fuel system (gasoline and diesel and the DOE should agree on a single, “real-world” vehicle fuels) as part of its program to demonstrate an engine capable fuel-consumption test protocol (duty cycle) that will be used of 55 percent BTE. The Navistar plan also includes a very by all three contractors, in addition to the tests developed extensive range of weight-reduction features. independently by each contractor. This common test would All three contractors have plans for evaluating the cost- provide another data point that could be used to compare the effectiveness and potential payback of the technologies in accomplishments of the three SuperTruck projects. their plans. A business case analysis for commercialization is one of the deliverables for the SuperTruck programs (DOE, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2010b). The committee believes that this cost-effectiveness Finding 8-1. The three SuperTruck projects will be the evaluation is a critical part of the project and hopes that comparable methods and approaches will be used so that the flagship projects under the 21CTP for FY 2011 through FY results from the three contractors can be compared. 2014; the goals are in concert with recommendations made In general, the committee believes that all three SuperTruck in the 2008 NRC Phase 1 report. A large portion of the DOE projects have plans that offer the potential for meeting 21CTP budget will be devoted to these three projects. Each program goals. The plans also cover a wide range of tech- SuperTruck project integrates a wide range of technologies nologies and allow for the evaluation of technologies over into a single demonstration vehicle (engine, waste heat a range of operating conditions. One concern is that current recovery, driveline, rolling resistance, tractor and trailer aerodynamics, idle reduction, weight reduction technologies, etc.), and the contractors are pursuing sufficiently different 7 Derek Rotz, Kevin Sisken, and David Kayes, Daimler and Detroit Die - technical paths to avoid excessive duplication of effort. The sel, “DTNA/DDC R&D with DOE; PCC, NZ-50, Super Truck,” presentation to the committee, September 9, 2010, Washington, D.C. results will help determine which fuel-saving technologies 8 Donald Stanton, Cummins, “Cummins-Peterbilt SuperTruck Program,” are ready and cost-effective for OEM-level product develop- presentation to the committee, November 15, 2010, Washington, D.C. ment programs. 9 Anthony Cook, Navistar, “Navistar’s SuperTruck Program,” presenta - tion to the committee, September 9, 2010, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 115
124 REVIEW OF THE 21ST CENTURY TRUCK PARTNERSHIP, SECOND REPORT Finding 8-2. Rather than have a number of targets for each Recommendation 8-2. The DOE and the SuperTruck con- subsystem, the SuperTruck projects have only two types of tractors should agree on at least one common vehicle duty goals: one for the engine and one for overall vehicle fuel cycle that will be used to compare the performance of all efficiency. This approach reflects the EPA and NHTSA three SuperTruck vehicles. In addition, fuel consumption approach to heavy-duty fuel efficiency regulations. Each improvements should be calculated on the basis of the EPA project team is allowed to select a set of technologies that and NHTSA fuel consumption regulations. meet the project goals. The engine goal of 50 percent BTE Finding 8-6. The SuperTruck projects go beyond the scope for the demonstration vehicle appears to be feasible, although there is risk in being able to achieve it at a cruise condition. of previous 21CTP projects. Instead of relying entirely on The engine goal of 55 percent BTE demonstrated in a test simulations and laboratory testing, each of these projects cell is very high risk but might be achievable. The overall will result in a drivable truck. The committee believes that it vehicle goal of a 33 percent reduction in load-specific fuel is important to take technologies that have been developed consumption appears to be feasible. to date and implement them in a real vehicle. Often, the implementation of new technologies in real-world applica- Finding 8-3. U nfortunately, the SuperTruck program tions yields unexpected results, and these results must be expresses vehicle efficiency targets in terms of fuel economy explored before any new technology can be considered ready rather than fuel consumption. The vehicle target is stated as for production implementation. a 50 percent improvement in fuel economy rather than as a 33 percent reduction in fuel consumption. This can lead to REFERENCES confusion regarding the actual benefits of the program. ATRI (American Transportation Research Institute). 2011. Idling Regu- lations Compendium. Available at http://www.atri-online.org/index. Recommendation 8-1. The DOE should state the SuperTruck php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164&Itemid=70. Ac- program vehicle efficiency goals in terms of load-specific cessed January 18, 2011. fuel consumption and track progress on this basis—that is DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010a. Secretary Chu Announces $187 gallons per 1,000 ton-miles, which is the metric used in the Million to Improve Vehicle Efficiency for Heavy-Duty Trucks and Passenger Vehicles. Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.energy. EPA/NHTSA fuel consumption regulations. gov/8506.htm. DOE. 2010b. Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0000079. U.S. Finding 8-4. The committee believes that the SuperTruck Dept of Energy, Recovery Act—Systems Level Technology Develop - project teams have developed plans that address the needs of ment, Integration, and Demonstration for Efficient Class 8 Trucks the SuperTruck program and that have a reasonable chance (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light Duty Vehicles (ATP-LD), DE-FOA-0000079. August 24. Washington, D.C.: for success. The keys to success include proper implementa- Department of Energy. Available at http://www.energy.gov/recovery/ tion of the plans along with the flexibility to adapt to new documents/zeDE-FOA-0000079.pdf. information and intermediate results during the course of DOE. 2010c. Multi-Year Program Plan 2011-2015. December. Washington, the project. D.C.: Office of Vehicle Technologies. NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Review of the 21st Century Truck Finding 8-5. The SuperTruck projects allow each team to Partnership. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2010. Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consump - design its own test duty cycle(s) within certain constraints. tion of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Washington, D.C.: The One negative consequence of this approach is that the National Academies Press. three trucks may never be tested using a common cycle for comparison.